The jurisdictional requirements of publication, posting and service of notice are provided in Section 13 of R.A. No. 26, as follows:
Sec. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section, to be published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the municipality or city in which the land is situated, at the provincial building and of the municipal building at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. . . . The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.
They seek to provide constructive notice to the whole world of the in rem reconstitution proceedings. Their purpose is to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action and to give them ample time to intervene in the proceeding. They bring in the whole world as a party to the case and vest the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
Anent the publication requirement, R. A. No. 26 obligates the petitioner to prove to the trial court two things, namely that: (1) its Order giving due course to the petition for reconstitution and setting it for hearing was published twice, in two consecutive issues of the Official Gazette; and (2) such publication was made at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. In the case at bench, private respondents were able to show both elements through the certification of the Director of the National Printing Office, a government official who enjoys the undisputed presumption of regularity in the performance of the functions of his office. We note that, on the other hand, mere submission of the subject Official Gazette issues would have evidenced only the first element.
Petitioner's reliance on the Best Evidence Rule is erroneous. What must be proved under Section 13, R. A. No. 26 is not the content of the Order published in the Official Gazette, but the fact of two-time publication in successive issues thereof at least thirty days before the hearing date.
This Court has consistently accepted the probative value of certifications of the Director of the National Printing Office in reconstitution cases. We have, on two separate occasions, adjudicated cases with factual backgrounds similar to the one at bench. In Register of Deeds of Malabon v. RTC, Malabon, MM, Br. 170 and Republic v. Court of Appeals, the parties seeking reconstitution did not submit copies of the Official Gazette in evidence, but merely relied on certifications comparable to the one at bench. In both cases, the granting of reconstitution by the trial court was reversed. But the reversals were not made on the basis of the failure to present the Official Gazette issues. They were, instead, both grounded on the fact — as clearly evidenced by the National Printing Office Director's certification — that the publications were made less than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. There is no reason for us to deviate from our earlier rulings and now require the submission of Official Gazette issues to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement in reconstitution cases. (Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 101690 August 23, 1995)
